343 / 462
GAZETTE
NOVEMBER 1991
Correspondence
Dear Sirs
We are a medium sized firm of
solicitors in Leeds which, as you are
aware, is a thriving commerical and
industrial centre in the North of
England.
Our firm has one office in the
centre of Leeds and five branch
offices.
We specialise in giving a full legal
service to medium sized and
smaller companies and are looking
to link up with lawyers of a similar
size in cities within Europe.
The idea behind this connection is
to ensure that clients of our res-
pective firms will be able to receive
expert advice on the legal system
of the respective countries in which
a problem may have arisen.
If any of your members would be
interested in becoming a member
of such an association then please
note that in addition to your city we
are also endeavouring to make
contact with solicitors in Milan,
Malaga, Rotterdam, Lyon, Antwerp,
Tel Aviv and Oporto.
We would be obliged if you could
provide this information to the
lawyers in your city and we
await hearing from them in due
course.
If we can be of any further
assistance in providing any
additional information then please
do not hesitate to contact our Mr.
Carvis.
Yours faithfully,
GODLOVE PEARLMAN.
Godlove Pearlman, Solicitors,
120 Harrogate Road,
Chapel Allerton,
Leeds, LS7 4NY.
Tel: 0532 696186,
Fax: 0532 661585
Mr. Noel C. Ryan,
Director General,
The Law Society.
Dear Sir,
We refer to our newspaper
advertisement in early July
concerning a bus accident at
White's Cross. We sincerely regret
this publication wh i ch we
understand caused offence to
some people. This was not
intended and we shall take all views
expressed into consideration in the
future.
Yours faithfully,
Mangan O'Beirne.
Director General,
Incorporated Law Society of
Ireland.
Dear Sir,
Re:
Multi-discipline practices
(MDPs). Article in July/August
1991
Gazette.
I have read Mr. Irvine's article with
interest. I refer to the paragraph
entitled "Principal Arguments in
favour of the Single Professional
Practice as against the MDP." In
subparagraph [ii] thereof it is stated
rather baldly "MDPs will, in many
instances, jeopardise the profes-
sional relationship with the client,
the judiciary and professional col-
leagues. MDPs will jeopardise the
independence of the legal pro-
fession and of the advice given."
Why should this be so? If the
arguments against MDPs are to be
seen as anything more than pro-
tection for the interests of lawyers
themselves as opposed to the con-
sumer I think some detailed ex-
amples would be necessary in this
regard. It is stated that a consumer
wishing to sue the non lawyer in an
MDP would have to consult new
legal advisers. Is there anything
surprising about this? Surely, if a
client wanted to sue partner No.
645 in a large practice, he would
not ask partner number 1 to take
the easel
At sub-heading [iv] entitled
"Fore i gn Dependence" it is
suggested that
partnership
between Irish solicitors and multi-
national accountancy firms could
prejudice the independence of Irish
solicitors and the the independence
and integrity of Irish law itself.
Again, there is no explanation or
example as to why or when this
would or should occur. The
comment in relation to the failure
of the big accountancy firms to
satisfy on a cost efficient basis the
needs of individuals, is I submit
irrelevant in the context of the
article. In any event the same
comments could presumably be
made against the larger law firms.
At number [vj under the heading
"Confidentiality", while I think our
profession could certainly benefit
from an entire article and reminder
on the subject of confidentiality, I
do not think it is reasonable to
suggest that non-lawyer partners in
an MDP would find it any way to
their benefit to ignore confident-
iality insofar as a client of that MDP
was concerned. The question of
privilege is a different matter but I
suggest this would give little dif-
ficulty as the MDP concept would
seem designed for matters of a
'civil' rather than 'criminal' nature.
At paragraph [iv] on the topic of
professional standards/discipline
and the difficulties over inter
professional jurisdiction, it is
suggested that the establishment
of a body with such jurisdiction
would almost certainly mean loss
of status and authority for the Law
Society. Would this be such a
terrible thing? What in the public
mind is the present status and
authority of the Law Society? Has
325